It's worth mentioning that Improved Multiweapon Fighting and Greater Multiweapon fighting did exist in 3.0/3.5, but were never republished in Pathfinder.
As far as not qualifying as having the two-weapon fighting, that's iffy. Multiweapon fighting states
Multiweapon Fighting wrote:
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
That's pretty open-ended wording. So maybe it only replaces your option of taking two-weapon fighting, but maybe it replaces every iteration of that feat for that character. So if another feat had two-weapon fighting as a prerequisite, it now has multiweapon fighting as a prerequisite in its place.
Haha, I wrote up a build that used a double-barreled pistol, but never bothered trying to TWF with them. At at certain point you've just got enough damage. Invest in something tactical! At the very least double-barreled firearms can help free up the feat tax of playing a gunslinger.
Yeah, the question of how double-barreled firearms function really does justify an FAQ clarification. It comes up often and the rules have no direct parallel to any other option. Though my feeling is that if this were done, it would either be nerfed or it wouldn't be nerfed, we'd see a 1000 post discussion of the FAQ entry, and then it would be nerfed. So for now, maybe just enjoy it quietly. :)
On balancing the gunslinger, I'll resist the urge to go off-topic, but at least say that the issues go way beyond individual firearms. (In theory, anyway. I've never played as or with a gunslinger).
@Rynjin: A free hand and an off-hand are two separate ideas. An off-hand is something defined only in the rules for two-weapon fighting, and isn't limited to just a hand (armor spikes). A free hand is an open hand.
I would argue that a longbow doesn't occupy your "off-hand". As a counter-example, I know you can't attack with armor spikes as an off-hand attack while wielding a two-handed weapon. That's a specific exception made by the FAQ, not something with game text to back it up (that I'm aware of). An off-hand is used when making an off-hand attack (through two-weapon fighting). Using a bow is not making an off-hand attack.
As far as two-weapon fighting with a longbow and an off-hand attack (such as a kick or a weapon held in a vestigial arm), I'd say maybe. The rules for two-weapon fighting really don't anticipate a character holding anything more than one weapon in each hand. That said, I probably wouldn't try it. The rules don't prohibit it, but they don't support it either.
@BBT: The rules for handedness and off-hands are barely defined. It's a weak spot in the core rules. If an ability is clearly meant to apply only to two-handed melee weapons, that's all it applies to.
"Spirits" as a concept isn't something that really fits into the core Pathfinder/D&D system. That's why 3.5's Spirit Shaman had a sidebar answering the question "What is a Spirit?". It included incorporeal undead, fey, and elementals, which needless to say are disparate creatures, mechanically.
As far as the spell list goes, both the cleric and druid lists cover different types of "spirits". Whichever list they settle on, I think most of the gaps can be filled with spirit magic. This is more or less the function of domains for both clerics and druids already.
Anyway, this is the reason why I would prefer the game as a whole use a different system for defining divine spell lists. Maybe something similar to 2nd Edition's Spheres of Influence. Towards that end, I like the idea that the shaman's spell list might be defined by his spirits, such as the Flame spirit granting all cleric and druid spells of the fire descriptor. You'd chose maybe 6 spirits at first level for your spell list, and your choice of wandering spirits would be limited to that list. Seems an unlikely approach though.
I think that's a stretch. Arcane Duelist states you may use the hand holding the bonded weapon for somatic components. That ability is useful for casting while wielding a weapon in each hand or a sword and shield. It doesn't serve as an argument that you can't remove one hand from a two-handed weapon to cast a spell (or an instrument, for that matter).
Anyway, I think a lot of the points that have been made are relevant to your initial question. The restrictions you're presuming are placed on violins are more extreme than is necessarily the case. There aren't even game rules for how many hands a particular instrument takes to play.
I liked the idea of weird words as a weapon, but it's something that would require a significant rewrite. If the sound striker were in playtest it would be one thing, but for errata it's just too much.
Based on how terribly weak wordstrike is, it seems likely that weird words was never intended to target a single creature more than once. If that's the case, the proposed rewrite is actually an improvement, not a nerf (save for the absurd performance cost). At a lower cost, I could see it being used a few times over the course of a campaign.
Though I do agree that it's a bit pointless to write a direct damage archetype that fails to improve the class's potential at dealing direct damage.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
So this archetype replaces a non-combat ability (suggestion) with a combat ability (weird words), so weird words can't be a strong combat ability because that would be a significant powerup for this archetype (replacing a non-combat ability with a combat ability, and replacing a weak ability with a strong ability).
If that's the goal, I say errata weird words as you've already proposed. If you want the ability to be weak, it's weak. Though I would consider reducing the performance cost to 1 round total, or maybe 2. 1 round per word is pretty excessive. I still think sonic damage is more sensible than physical damage, since you're attacking with sound and all.
As far as what a lot of us would like the sound striker to be, the answer may just be to homebrew a new sound striker archetype. Maybe one that replaces more than just a couple niche performances, to really justify having a viable direct damage ability. For PFS players, well, there's always Thundercaller, right?
First of all, vestigial arm comes with its own set of restrictions on gaining attacks. It never grants additional off-hand attacks per round, so its real use with a TWF gunslinger will be reloading.
Second, using two off-hands to grip a two-handed weapon (melee or ranged) really isn't allowed or disallowed by the rules; It's simply never addressed (as far as I can find). I can imagine it being allowed for two-handed melee weapons (each off-hand grants +.5xStr modifier damage), but two-handed ranged weapons are dubious. For instance, a composite longbow used in two off-hands shouldn't be getting the same strength modifier to damage as one used with a primary hand (following the logic of off-hands). I would just steer clear of that idea.
As Rynjin stated. Bardic music is a standard action to start, but only a free action to maintain. So maintain the song at the start of your turn (free action), remove one hand from the violin (free action), cast a spell (standard), then return that hand to the violin (free action). Presumably the hand holding the instrument can temporarily grip the bow.
@Tels: I like the scorching ray equivalent too. I tried rewriting my earlier suggestion, and frankly I like yours better. So you've got my vote! (as if it mattered)
Though I don't see the sounds being rays is a problem, in terms of too much damage accumulating.
very casual example:
I'm playing in a PF campaign with a 9th level party. If my character were a sound striker, with your suggestion I would be expending 2 rounds of performance as a standard action to deal an average of about 30 sonic damage to a single target (28av+2PBS). Off the top of my head, I can think of ways to get that number up to about 38. I'd guess the party's DPR classes do an average of about 60+ in a full attack. More importantly, the sound-striker is trading his potential to buff those characters and his own attacks to instead make a ray attack, which really narrows the difference in net damage. The only exception that comes to mind would take a 5th level bard spell. And if the damage becomes more competitive with optimization, I think that's okay, because the character is investing resources into that specialization. So for what it's worth, I could see that character fitting into the party without conflict.
I agree that a recipient of raging song should simply be allowed to activate their own rage ability instead of the skald's, save that they receive the benefit of bonus rage powers. I think that's balanced, because while barbarians are gaining a superior benefit, it's also something they've already invested their resources into (unlike classes without rage).
This is a simple idea, but what about a couple more songs? Maybe a "furious casting song" that boosts spell damage? Basically, any way for the skald to buff a party of gishes and casters. As a support class, their utility shouldn't be so narrow.
I really like the idea of making the skald a divine caster. Mostly because that really carves a unique niche for future archetypes. I've found myself wanting to play a divine bard, and was disappointing that wasn't an option.
Oh god, the number crunching! This is part of why I mentioned the class should expand the function of favored target. If the class can excel at debilitating an enemy with their attacks then they'll at least offer something that can't be measured through DPR calculations.
For talents, I think it makes sense to give the slayer "any rogue talent which modifies or improves sneak attack". Then sneak attack talents can just be written for the rogue, while the slayer can get more specific talents that have synergy with his favored target class feature.
Whatever spell-list and progression they end up going with (ranger or druid), I think the spell list can be filled out with options that add bonus spells to their list. This could be something as simple as selecting a ranger spell to add to your list of druid spells every couple levels.
I think the idea of possessing your animal companion is great. Shared senses too.
Animal Focus isn't a bad option, or unbalanced, it's just dry, particularly considering the magic item overlap. Wolf, Stag, and Snake are on the right track. I'd much prefer seeing this ability grant special combat options related to animals than stat and skill buffs. I'd prefer this to the suggestion of importing combat styles. Maybe you could receive an additional bonus if the animal type matches your companion.
I'm on board with more cooperative abilities. Maybe scaling the "aid another" bonuses when used between you and your companion. Or some set-up abilities that take advantage of readied actions.
The one class I suspect needs a longer playtest period than the rest is the Arcanist. The strength of the wizard to adapt his spell selection to a given circumstance is something that really emerges over the course of several sessions, so determining the potency of combining that with the sorcerer's spontaneous casting is something that can't be approximated with most one-shots.
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
As written, their levels don't count as fighter levels (I think?). That said, I think they should. And I agree, there are a number of ways to overcome the issue of damage reduction that don't invoke supernaturally aligning your unarmed strikes. (Greater) penetrating strike, amulet of mighty fists, magic knuckles. Even an Ex ability that worked similar to (and stacked with) penetrating strike would do the job.
I agree that Brawler Strike is misplaced. The class should have only extraordinary abilities. If you want to bypass damage reduction with your unarmed strikes, get an amulet of mighty fists.
Besides that, I'd like to see more modularity in the class design. Martial Maneuvers certainly seems to make the brawler versatile, but may also make the differences between one brawler and another (mechanically) less distinct.
Martial Maneuvers also seems difficult to gauge without seeing it in action. I agree that the duration should be longer, perhaps at the expense of its versatility. I almost wonder if the on-the-fly feats shouldn't be something prepared and then selected spontaneously, sort of like the martial parallel to Arcanists (with or without a book of martial maneuvers).
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
True enough! Didn't mean to sound so skeptical. Mostly I was just trying to establish to what degree the classes are subject to change, and in what ways their mechanics are fixed. Though that's something to be explored on a case-by-case basis, I'm sure.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
I suspect a lot of the pushback is due to love for the archetype system. What hybrid classes attempt is a lot of what archetypes have been used for, and many of us would just like to stick to that system. For instance, the concept of "bard" or "fighter" is general enough to allow a multitude of archetypes. To me, half of the hybrid classes feel too similar to their parents in concept to allow meaning expansion through archetypes. I could of course be wrong, that's just my impression.
That said, I'm not arguing against the release of the product. That ship has sailed (which has been stated more than once). I know none of the classes will be scrapped, but I at least hope you're willing to make some meaningful changes to the framework of the mechanics, rather than only minor tweaks. Otherwise, it would be good to know that now and be saved the effort of unsolicited design advice. :)
Hybrid Classes fail to offer new niches, unnecessary reiterate old classes and dilute support for existing classes.
I think the point is still valid, though I would state it differently. We already have a holy warrior, it's called the War Cleric (Crusader)/Paladin/Battle Oracle/Inquisitor. In other words, there's just so much support for some concepts that we don't need to retread that ground. Though to their credit, each of the classes I listed is distinct, at least.
I agree that the hybrid-classes might open up options that didn't exist in quite the desired configuration before. But I think it's something that could have been done better through a more substantial use of archetypes. With the Warpriest, for instance, why not instead present blessings as alternate domain abilities? It could be attached to an archetype that lets you enhance weapons and armor in place of channel energy. (though I'm aware warpriests also possess channel energy).
My disappointment with the hybrid classes isn't so much that I was looking for entirely new concepts (as seen in classes like alchemist and summoner), but more that I was expecting a book of magus-like classes. To me, magus is a success for mostly two reasons:
1. It combines two class concepts (fighter and wizard) in a way that results in something unique in both function and effect.
So to be worth-while, I feel that these hybrid-classes need to excel on one or both points. Without getting into specifics, I feel that most of the new classes are pretty distant from one or the other goal. Abilities that are familiar are good for game balance, but it's not something that motivates me to pick up a class.
I like the direction that Favored Target is going. One thing I think this book needs more of are hybrid abilities that result in something truly unique (like Magus), and I think Favored Target is the Slayer's foothold into this. So, personally, I'd like to see that ability be the focus of more (if not most) slayer talents. Sneak attack is all about looking for an opening and pinpointing weaknesses, so it'd make sense for favored target to have a more direct synergy with that ability, possibly boosting the DC of sneak attack talents, or allowing them to succeed on enemies normally immune.
Not a fan of the slayer's ability to simultaneously study so many opponents at once. Eventually you're able to study 5 opponents at once, at which point I think you lose the impression you're really focusing on something.
I'm on the fence about whether it should be Int or Wis based. Either makes sense, considering it's the rogue/ranger hybrid.
I'm also very confused as to why the Investigator gets higher Sneak Attack progression than the Slayer.
Same here! I don't doubt they make up for the damage in other ways, but from a narrative perspective, this is a class that "spends most of their time...studying the habits and anatomy of foes" and have "a dedication to the art of death." Their sneak attack should be better than an investigator at least, if not a rogue.
I don't know of any rules that cover this specifically.
However, since Greater Disarm serves a similar function (sending an opponent's item flying), you probably shouldn't be able to obtain similar results without a feat.
That said, it's hard to justify prohibiting someone from kicking an item. I'd say it probably falls under the category of manipulating an item, which is a move action. I'd house-rule that it provoked. Past that, it's a case-by-case basis. There are just too many possibilities for the rules to cover what you can kick and how far. In most cases, I would say 5ft.
Here we go:
It isn't spelled out, but if your caster level is increased only for a particular spell, I think it's clear that you use the caster level of that spell for any relevant caster level checks (such as against spell resistance). The same would be true of a penalty to caster level on a spell or spell school.
So, I was looking through the PRD, and noticed Table: New Item Craft DCs (scroll down to Field Repair). This table includes the new weapon types introduced in that book (Ultimate Combat), along with the corresponding craft skills and DCs. What the table is missing are craft skills and DCs for the ammunition of one-handed and two-handed firearms, siege firearms, and siege weapons. I posted this as an omission in the Ultimate Combat errata thread, which generated some discussion as to whether or not it was possible to craft firearms or firearm ammunition through any means other than gunsmithing. I insisted you could, but since it was disputed, I've decided to bring the topic here for discussion.
Question A: Can firearms and firearm ammunition be crafted through use of the craft (firearms) and craft (alchemy) skills? Or is the Gunsmithing feat the only option?
I think the answer to A is Yes. Below are my reasons, as responses to counter-arguments:
1)That table is only meant to be referenced when using the Field Repair feat.
Field Repair states that to repair a broken item "you can make a Craft check with the DC it takes to craft that item (see Table 2–2, below)." The table is titled "New Item Craft DCs". I believe the table is intended to expand the craft skill generally, and appears under a relevant feat because the book lacks a "Skills" chapter (due to too few new skills to justify a whole chapter).
2)A character is meant to take gunsmithing if he wants to craft firearms and ammunition. The feat wouldn't exist if you could just use the craft skill instead.
Craft (firearms) at the very least exists as a skill, according to the Feats chapter. Gunsmithing doesn't utilize the craft skill, so it can't exist as a prerequisite. As such, craft (firearms) likely follows the same rules as any craft skill. My feeling is that the purpose of gunsmithing is simply to streamline gun maintenance, due to the frequency of misfires. Also, to avoid requiring all gunslingers to invest in two craft skills.
3) Crafting firearms might be allowed, but ammunition was intentionally omitted.
I suspect ammunition was mistakenly omitted in editing as a result of it having no relevance to the field repair feat. That, and if it's possible to craft a firearm through craft (firearms), it's silly to require a feat to craft the small ball of lead it propels. At any rate, gunsmithing doesn't cover ammunition for siege firearms.
4)The page on firearms references needing Gunsmithing on two occasions to craft and repair firearms. Under Emerging Guns, it states you need the "Craft Firearms feat" to make effective use of guns.
"Craft Firearms" doesn't exist as a feat anywhere I can find, but they might have meant "Gunsmithing". I think this is the best argument. It's possible that after some deliberation, the designers decided you couldn't craft firearms without gunsmithing, but then forget that the craft (firearms) skill existed in another chapter.
At the very least, the table needs craft skills and DCs for siege firearm and siege weapon ammunition, unless I've overlooked it. Apologies in advance if this has been answered or I've made some critical error.
DR doesn't seem to be a major issue to me. DR generally doesn't scale as high as energy resistance, and doesn't seem any more common than energy resistance. So I don't think Weird Words is at a distinct disadvantage in that regard. Though I still insist sonic damage is what makes sense.
Glad to hear they're now rays! Wooo! Rules with precedent!
It's true that, as a ray, it can now have it's damage boosted much higher. But so can rays from other sources, many of which don't interrupt a performance. A high level bard might average 39 damage per ray (18av+13Cha+5AS+1PBS+2GH), or 43 with inspire courage. You can fire up to 10 rays, but only within 30ft, which isn't any more impressive than an area spell. I wouldn't say this level of damage is worth worrying about.
I think that if you allowed weird words to function without interrupting a performance, and at the cost of one performance for all rays, it might be a worth-while trade (though nothing to get excited about).
I'm still a supporter of focused fire. Here's my suggestion: Same rules as the PDT suggestion, but costs 2 performance rounds (at all levels), gives 1 sound per 2 bard levels, and add +1d8 damage per additional ray targeted at a single subject (no additional attacks/attack rolls). That would allow a single ray to deal 7d8+Cha modifier at level 10, or 13d8+Cha modifier at level 20. It'd be a strong option, but not out of control for the given levels (from my experience).
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
I could have sworn that you could only craft them without the feat at higher Availability levels...
You're probably thinking of this line, on Emerging Guns:
PRD/Ultimate Combat wrote:
Adventurers who want to use guns must take the Craft Firearms feat just to make them feasible weapons.
This is the only mention of the "Craft Firearms feat" anywhere in this book or the PRD that I can find. Obviously guns can be made into feasible weapons without the non-existent feat. My guess is that the line is a left-over from the process of deciding how they wanted to handle firearm crafting and repair for gunslingers, which resulted in gunsmithing. But nothing prohibits using craft(firearms) to craft guns. The only thing that's missing are the skills and DCs for ammunition.
I appreciate the suggested DCs, but it's still something that needs errata. I don't mean to derail the thread, so if there's any disagreement on this, we can start a thread in the Rules Questions forum (though I have fewer questions than assertions. :)
Wanting separate mechanics from TWF and wanting to eliminate virtual BAB are both fine design goals. But I think you need to focus more on what you want the feature to do, and take the simplest possible path towards that goal.
I wouldn't offer attack bonuses with a flurry. You shouldn't be better at making attacks by virtue of making more of them. If you want the bonuses to hit, make it a separate class feature. +1 to hit with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons, +1 per 5 levels.
The big draw I see in the proposed revision is getting more attacks with a standard action. Here's a quick suggestion, without looking at how other classes do it:
Quick FoB Revision:
At 1st level, a monk may take a swift action to turn all attacks that turn into a "flurry". He gains one additional attack that turn, which he may make at any point after his first attack, though only when taking the full-attack action. The attack is made at his full BAB -2. Attacks made in a flurry must be made with an unarmed strike or special monk weapon. A monk cannot activate this ability if he has already made an attack that turn, and cannot TWF during a flurry.
At 6th level, a monk may gain this extra attack on any turn he has made at least one attack, without needing to make a full-attack. At 11th level, the monk gains an additional attack per turn when using this ability, but at a -4 penalty. At 15th level, the monk gains a third extra attack, but at a -6 penalty.
Certainly better fixes out there, but I just felt like writing one. It should be open-ended enough to work with spring attack, though probably too open-ended. Extra attacks on an attack of opportunity is a good idea, but was hard to fit in.
Ah, spell specialization. That makes more sense. Yeah, I think that essentially you treat your caster level as being 2 higher for that spell. They probably added the "level-variable effects" line to shut-down the idea that your caster level for one spell somehow qualified your character for unrelated prerequisites (crafting feats, determining arcane strike).
But mostly it's just redundant. It stands to reason that level-based variables are anything modified by caster level, since that's all the feat adjusts. Dispel checks are based on caster level, so if dispel magic is used at a higher caster level, your dispel check is likewise increased.
Haha, yeah. This reminds me of the frenzy over the Tome of Battle classes in 3.5 and the argument that they made many existing melee classes obsolete. That was mostly a problem because it was attached to a new quasi-magic subsystem and all the over-the-top maneuver names. At any rate, the doubt the brawler will have that problem.
I also don't think it's worth worrying that the monk will no longer see support. I have to imagine that if the Brawler is truly a monk/fighter hybrid, a lot of options that apply to one will apply to the other. Besides, the base monk won't see a major revision in this edition whether the brawler exists or not. And I'd count the chances of us seeing a beefed-up monk archetype as being higher with the existence or brawler than without, since it may have new mechanics to be borrowed from.
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
They require the feat to craft a firearm..
The feat Gunsmithing allows you to craft firearms without the use of the craft skill. Craft (firearm) allows you to craft a one-handed or two-handed firearm at DC 20.
It'd be easy to mistake that table as only applying to the use of the field repair feat, but that feat states "you can make a Craft check with the DC it takes to craft that item (see Table 2–2, below)." Since Ultimate Combat didn't have a skills chapter, they decided to place the "New Item Craft DCs" table under a relevant feat. I imagine it was mistakenly omitted due to field repair having no benefit for ammunition.
Gunsmithing doesn't cover crafting ammunition for siege firearms. Am I overlooking the text that covers the craft DCs for siege ammunition?
As far as one and two-handed firearm ammunition is concerned, if a character can potentially craft a firearm untrained, I can't imagine they're required to take a feat to craft bullets (balls of lead).
Pathfinder requires a certain threshold of abstract thought capacity and lateral thinking and if you are so lacking in those that this situation confuses you, you need to more judiciously pick your pastimes.
lol. Some of us just think the difference in the two situations is unintentional rather than intentional, and that the rules weren't written with that distinction in mind.
Sure, you need to be able to distinguish subtle differences is language to play the game. You also need to be able to distinguish when the rules weren't written as precisely as they could have been, and how to infer their intended function based on the established rules logic (in this case, handedness and how many hands something is wielded in).
The game is multifaceted, and players don't always give the same weight to each facet. Part of being a good GM is giving each player a turn, and part of being a good player is being patient and respectful when that occurs. So yeah, they need to stop being jerks.
I agree with the above suggestions that communicating in 3rd person is viable. Try suggesting that instead. It will at least ease them into thinking in-character, and who knows? Maybe they'll occasionally slip into speaking in-character after that.
If they refuse to get into character at all, you might have a problem. A conventional game of D&D/Pathfinder isn't just a board game. If that's all they want, then I don't think anyone will be happy. During NPC interactions the combat guys will be bored, and the roleplayers will be unfulfilled and distracted by their lack of interest.
Warning: I haven't read all 1600+ posts prior to this. Also, some wild speculation ahead.
I do wonder if Paizo isn't taking the long view of things and playtesting class features they might incorporate into an eventual 2nd edition. Not saying it's on the horizon, but it would make sense. A lot of these hybrid classes could eventually subsume existing classes. Anyway, some thoughts:
Hunter and shaman sound like a good way of splitting the druid into its component parts. Shaman also sounds to me like a better base for the concepts of the druid, oracle, and witch, which I could see as archetypes for a single class (in concept, not their current execution).
Warpriest seems redundant given that we have paladins, war clerics, battle oracles, and inquisitors. But I agree about needing paladins of all alignments. I'm sure "Crusader" has already been suggested as an alternate name. I'd like to see something like this subsume the paladin and inquisitor, eventually. Given the function of archetypes, there's no need for three (four? five?) holy warrior classes.
Not sure about slayers. Not a very evocative name, but I guess "assassin" was taken. Could be a good way of consolidating the offensive techniques of the ranger, inquisitor, and rogue. Rangers always seemed a bit hodge-podge to me anyway, so splitting them into hunters and slayers makes sense.
Brawlers might be a bit like gunslingers; it's a concept covered by fighter, but it needs its own class to shine. Not sure I feel the same way about swashbucklers and skalds.
I like the thematic parallel between the bloodrager and magus. Agreed that the name is bad, but it's hard to think of an alternative. "Totemist"?
The Arcanist sounds similar to D&D 5th edition's arcane caster in that it tries to compromise the two spellcasting systems. I like the idea as a replacement, but seems excessive as an additional class.
Investigator sounds interesting, but as a concept sounds better suited as an alchemist/rogue prestige class than it would a base class. It's really specific. How many detectives in fiction also brew magic potions?
Marked for FAQ. Treating a weapon as though it were wielded in two hands while wielding it in one is a potent enough benefit that it deserves to be called out explicitly, not opaquely implied through the omission of more specific text. And if there's going to be a major rules distinction implied by something so subtle, that distinction deserves to be addressed by the FAQ.
The intent of the eidolon's appearance being "fantastical" is that it is visually distinct from all existing specific creatures. It's unlike anything anyone has ever seen exactly. Someone who is familiar with demons will not mistake your eidolon as a balor (barring attempts at disguise and illusion). The exact degree of resemblance and in-world connections is something to work out with you DM.
I agree with the first reply that specific trumps general. When the FAQ answers with nothing more than a "Yes." or a "No." it typically means there's no clear rules justification for that interpretation, they just decided that specific example should work that way.
My opinion is that the design team made the wrong call about lances. It's inconsistent with the other FAQ, which takes a more balanced and intuitive stance on the subject.
Oh, and as far as your party is concerned, I support ambushing them. Not steamrolling them, but giving them an incentive not to camp out for a day right outside the gate to the big-bad's throne room. Including more time sensitive scenarios will also discourage impromptu camp-outs. If the big-bad is setting up a ritual to sacrifice the prince to some dark power, the party risks finding a dead prince in an empty room should they rest. The NPCs can be every bit as mobile as the PCs. If they're literally just sitting around twiddling their thumbs until the party gets to them, the players have every reason to take their time and play it safe.
Note that alchemists are never stated as requiring 8 hours of rest to prepare their extracts. They can prepare a certain number of extracts per day, and each extract remains potent for 1 day. So you're right in seeing the necessity of defining a "day". You don't want the alchemist preparing all his extracts per day an hour before midnight, then preparing another batch an hour later, since yesterday's will remain potent for another 24 hours but tomorrow is a new day. :)
A more balanced alternative is to say that a given slot can only be used to prepare an extract 24 hours after it was last used to do so.
The only issue is that tracking different slots used at different times of day is a potential nightmare. A day as a day is a lot easier. So I might house-rule an ability for the alchemist to "reset" with 8 hours of rest. This would cause all extracts prepared the previous day to go inert, just as though 24 hours had already past.
Diego Rossi wrote:
My point is simply that, like a material component pouch, the alchemist's kit contains all the components needed for extracts, mutagens, and bombs. The weight of those items is included in the weight of the alchemist's kit, which never fluctuates, regardless of how many extracts you're capable of preparing or have imbibed, or how many bombs you're capable of creating or have thrown.
If you're going to target the catalysts, just target the archemist's kit. Seriously. It's a single item that's intended to have all the components needed to create bombs, mutagens, and extracts. All of those things are liquid-based. You don't track the weight of the ounce of catalyst for each bomb or the weight of each vial because it's assumed to be included in the weight of the alchemist's kit. For this situation, the designers could not have made this any easier.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:
The role of the sound striker archetype is a bard who can supplement his spellcasting, support, and weapon damage roles with a direct-damage use of his bardic performance currency (rounds of bardic performance). It is not intended to make the bard as ranged-effective as an archer. In other words, it is intended to augment the bard's melee abilities (just as its 3rd-level ability replaces inspire competence with a more martial use of performance rounds), but not replace them...
I'd like to hear to what degree the PDT is willing to revise the class feature. I get the feeling the intent is to keep the core ability intact, for ease of errata. On the other hand, I don't see this as likely arriving at the stated design goal.
Under the present proposal, it's an AoE blast spell with negligible damage. If damage is all the ability has to offer, and the damage isn't competitive, it will never compliment a melee bard. It's not worth the action cost, much less performance rounds.
Since we already have a solid bard archetype that offers a superior AoE sonic blast and debuff (thundercaller), would the PDT consider allowing Weird Words the potential to rival archery, in terms of damage? Even allowing multiple words to target a single creature, with a range of only 30ft it's hardly a replacement for bows.
We can discuss what we feel is balanced in terms of a single target blast all day long, but if the PDT has no intention of making it viable in that respect, then there isn't much point.
@Mikaze/Icyshadow: It does specify still water. I don't think bodily fluids count.
I would have the alchemist roll once for each extract, once for his mutagen, and once for the alchemist's kit.
Though I will say that if you strip the alchemist of all his class features at the beginning of a dragon encounter, that player will not have fun. If you can give the PCs an opportunity for a hint, it might clue the alchemist into purchasing a backup kit and keeping it in his haversack (not a bad idea for wizards with spell component pouches either). At the very least it'll hurt the alchemist's action economy.
With the example alchemist taking vestigial arm, who lacks a high BAB and can only gain two manufactured weapon attacks through two-weapon fighting. Yes, right on all points.
Otherwise, sprouting extra hands typically does grant you extra off-hands. Check the Multi-Armed trait from the Race Builder in ARG for one such example. So vestigial arm is an exception to the norm.
Because ultimately, the thing that prohibits multiweapon fighting is the language of the FAQ. It's not some difference between natural and manufactured weapons. It's that a Vestigial Arm does not function entirely like a regular one. And how it is different is explained in the FAQ language (as it currently exists). And if that FAQ language limits how you can attack with manufactured weapons, it also limits how you can attack with claws - because the FAQ explicitly says the same manufactured weapons limitation is also applied to natural weapons.
The "restrictions" the FAQ refers to, that natural weapons share with manufactured weapons, is that if the weapon is held or attached to the vestigial arm, it can't be used in such a way as to gain the character a greater number of attacks per round than the most that character could otherwise make.
There are otherwise no limitations placed on using the arm to wield manufactured weapons. You can attack with a weapon in each of your three arms, you just can't do that with the example character, who otherwise has, at most, two attacks per round. (though I did note earlier the contradiction that having racial claws would allow you to make those attacks)
The vestigial arm doesn't provide the character with additional off-hands, but your capacity to gain claw attacks isn't limited by your number of off-hands, only the number of hands. Presumably. The rules for gaining duplicate natural attacks and whether or not they extend to your new appendages are sparse and derived from inference. That issue relates to this FAQ, but is distinct from the points made by the FAQ.
...what is currently stopping a character from attacking with a Dagger/Dagger/Armor Spikes?
You're going to have to be more specific. If two of those attacks are primary (+6/+1), nothing. If one of the daggers is off-hand, then the language of armor spikes prevents it.
You can't use multiweapon fighting with the vestigial arm because the vestigial arm doesn't work like an extra arm usually does. That's really all there is to it.
Literal hands and limbs are not the same as "hands," unfortunately.
It's not even that simple. Creatures with multiple arms typically do treat their additional hands as additional off-hands. So there is a correlation between hands and off-hands, it's just not applied consistently.
I understand that people are frustrated with the idea of a character exchanging the potential to attack with a sub-par weapon they'd never use to attack with a more optimal choice. But I think the point of the attack cap is to keep the potential attacks per round from escalating even further. So 5 attacks might be more than the 3 that character would usually make, but at least it doesn't open up the potential for 7.
Unarmed strikes were fuzzy in 3.5, and are equally so in PF. That's another subject entirely, though.